Among the judgment of the first instance court, the part on the defendant A, B, and E and the judgment of the second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, B, and.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to injury by robbery), Defendant A did not make the same remarks as stated in the facts charged against Defendant B, E and property taking advantage of the facts charged, and even though there was no fact that Defendant B, E and property taking were conspired or participated therein, Defendant A was guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the judgment of the first instance court which found Defendant

(2) The first sentence of an unreasonable sentencing decision ( Imprisonment with prison labor, three years and six months and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the violation of the Act on the Robbery, Injury and Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint confinement)), Defendant B did not assist the victim in any form in boarding the car at the front end, and Defendant E did not use any physical force against the victim since the victim was prevented from assaulting the victim within the above car, and thus, Defendant E did not use any physical force. Thus, Defendant B was involved in the robbery, injury and confinement of the robbery in this case, and there was an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant guilty of each charge, notwithstanding the fact that each

(2) Each sentence on the first instance of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and collection, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 months and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

C. On August 13, 2015, Defendant E’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s argument on the part of Defendant E’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant E as follows. However, Defendant E’s defense counsel asserted to the effect that “it is a justifiable act that does not violate social rules even if there was no intention to detain Defendant E,” but it is a justifiable act that was raised only after the lapse of the period for appeal, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate reason for appeal.